This year’s Black Friday bargain…
On 17th and 18th October 2023, a two day hearing in the long running civil case between former MP John Hemming and “journalist” Sonia Poulton (and others) took place.
The hearing was to determine rulings on specific applications from both claimant (Hemming), defendant (Poulton) and for other issues involving the other parties to the case, Sam Smith (3rd party) and Darren Laverty (4th party) to be somewhat resolved.
Note: Featured image on this article is of (left to right) Darren Laverty, Sam Smith, John Hemming and Matthew Hodson outside the Royal Courts of Justice in October 2023 – reproduced here with kind permission of the copyright owner.
On 24th November 2023, Mrs Justice Hill presiding over the hearing, issued a lengthy ruling on the applications etc at the October 2023 hearing. A PDF Copy localised is available below:
The ruling is somewhat of a “mixed bag” in terms of success for both sides, in our opinion. Sam Smith has published a short article on the ruling also.
A timeline of the case history can be found on Caseboard.
There were a total of six applications, as well as other issues, to be considered by Justice Hill.
Mr Hemming was represented by barrister Matthew Hodson. Poulton, Smith and Laverty represented themselves although Poulton was supported in court by her “employer” Muhammad Butt, CEO of “OneVSP” [formerly Brand New Tube] and Butt had given a witness statement for the hearing in support of Poulton.
We’ll return to some of the other issues shortly.
Applications
Mr Hemming had made a total of three applications requiring consideration by the judge. Ms Poulton had made two applications and there was also an application from Mr Laverty in a counter to the 2nd application by Ms Poulton to consider.
Mr Hemming’s 1st application [application 1 in this article] related to seeking permission to
amend the Particulars of Claim (“POC”), including to add new defamation, data protection and harassment claims against Ms Poulton.
In summary, he was successful in obtaining permission to pursue a new harassment claim against Poulton and to add additional information into the particulars of claim in respect of the original publication [an interview Poulton gave to Shaun Attwood referenced as Publication 1 in the ruling].
Hemming was also successful in obtaining permission to include 4 additional publications by Poulton into his data protection claim but NOT publications 2-4 in the defamation claim.
He was successful in obtaining permission in adding Publication 5 to the defamation claim. Justice Hill had this to say when describing Publication 5:
Mr Hemming’s 2nd application [application 2 in this article] related to seeking permission to drop the usual 1 year limitation on defamation proceedings with respect to 4 specific publications by Poulton and some of her Twitter followers. In summary, he was unsuccessful in removing the limitation to 3 of the publication but successful in getting permission to amend his claim for “publication 5” (as referenced in the ruling). Crucially though, although publications 2-4 are “off the table” with regards to a defamation claim they are not in a harassment claim because the limitation periods are different (as we understand).
In the context of the new harassment claim the material for publications 2-4 is not “off the table” completely.
So Hemming was successful in allowing the material to remain presentable as evidence in the new harassment claim but not to seek a defamation claim on the material.
This appears to us to be a common sense approach by the judge and given the time constraints on harassment material being much lengthier than defamation is also sensible. It also means that other material Poulton and her “friends” have posted may also now be “on the table” and for a much longer period of time than the 1 year defamation limitation too.
Mr Hemming’s 3rd application [application 3 in this article] to lift a previous stay in an associated case relating to data protection issues. In summary, He was unsuccessful in lifting the stay at this time however that may be reviewed again in future.
Ms Poulton’s first application [application 4 in this article] was seeking permission to re-amend the Defence and Counterclaim, including an application to withdraw an admission she made. She was successful in gaining permission to amend the documents however was unsuccessful in the application to remove the admission. She was also constrained in the detail of the amendments permitted.
Ms Poulton’s second application [application 5 in this article] relates to her seeking injunctive relief and other orders against Mr Laverty for alleged breaches of their earlier settlement agreement.
Mr Laverty has counter applied [application 6 in this article] for alleged breaches of the same earlier settlement agreement also seeking injunctive relief and other orders against Ms Poulton.
In summary, neither application 5 nor application 6 were successful at this time, however the judge has directed further actions by both Poulton and Laverty to enable both applications to progress at a later date.
In terms of costs rulings, again it was a mixed bag for both sides. Neither side can claim total victory on that score in our view, however, Poulton has been left with a £30k cost for a specific hearing having lost her contention on that as Smith points out in his article.
Smith’s description is thus:
Because of her litigation misconduct of ambushing Mr Hemming before the hearing of 13 July 2022 with a limitation point, Poulton has been ordered to pay the entire cost of that hearing whoever wins the case. Hemming’s claimed costs were over £7,500 whilst Poulton’s claimed costs were over £22,982.90. Regardless of who wins the case, Sonia has lost her nearly £23K in costs for that hearing and will have to pay some part of Hemming’s costs (to be assessed if not agreed). So she has taken a hit of around £30K.
Sam Smith in https://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=10119
If any donors wondered where their donations to Poulton’s fighting fund went, it is pretty clear that Poulton could’ve avoided considerable costs, more on that type of conduct shortly below.
Comments and Observations
It is worth examining some of the comments by Mrs Justice Hill in her ruling.
Firstly on application 1. Justice Hill usefully summarised the issue of malice as defined in Gatley on Libel and Slander (13th edition):
Further, her ruling on application 1 with respect to amending the particulars of claim by Hemming also include this:
“what is a credible case on malice“
As mentioned earlier in this article, Publication 5 relates to one of several posts on Poulton’s “fundraising page” and, whilst she is defending the material, it also demonstrates that despite numerous apparent attempts to reason with her, she was still posting material that could turn out to be defamation and/or harassment against the other parties.
Oh the joys of a litigant in person who doesn’t appear to understand court procedures were evident in this observation by Justice Hill:
In a wider point on the application by Poulton to remove a specific paragraph from her defence, Justice Hill had this to say:
It is relevant that “(c)” refers to a list of issues that judges have to consider when being faced with an application to withdraw an admission in a court document from one of the parties to the case:
Justice Hill’s observations on Poulton’s conduct were not limited to the above either:
“this appears to be largely a problem of her own making“
“it was a matter of common sense that to assert someone had sexually abused a child was bound to cause serious harm. In my judgment, these submissions have considerable force.“
“the prejudice to the Defendant [Poulton] by refusing the application is of her own making“
Justice Hill’s criticisms of conduct were not limited to Poulton however:
In regards to the application by Poulton regarding alleged breach of contract by Mr Laverty, Justice Hill observed:
In regards to the counter application by Mr Laverty for breach of contract by Ms Poulton:
The two breach of contract claims are a mess in our view, both Poulton and Laverty simply have to stop disparaging or even referring to each other publicly, Poulton, in particular, needs to stop inciting responses via her fundraising page and other material designed to create “support” or otherwise for her defence of what appear to be increasing problems for her.
Likewise, her supporters need to STFU somewhat about the case unless reporting factually on the various hearings etc.
The allegations against Mr Laverty regarding the breach are, in our opinion, somewhat strange in that they appear to include comments made by third parties and may yet expose publicly some of Ms Poulton’s rather strong reluctance to accept any criticism of her conduct and other issues which she may regret becoming more public knowledge – that is pure speculation on our part and not an indicator of what the parties to the case may or may not do in future.
However, as Sam Smith revealed in his article, the settlement between Poulton and Laverty (previously confidential) has now passed into the public domain as a result of the October 2023 hearing and its content. Smith describes such as:
So despite claims online to the contrary Ms Poulton did NOT receive costs against Laverty previously. This is indicative of the problems, we opine, which Poulton may be facing in future, i.e. tells her supporters one thing but reality is very different.
Both Poulton and Laverty had to agree previously to a reciprocal non-disparagement agreement.
The issues now are whether such agreement has been broken by either or both Poulton and/or Laverty. Thus the mess as indicated above. For that to happen there will have to be disclosure between the parties.
Indeed, Mrs Justice Hill has made it clear there will be an order made for standard disclosures for the whole case in the very near future.
Our views
There has been far too much rumour and innuendo on the part of the defendant and her supporters, some of it clearly presented to the judge in the case by Poulton as seen above.
The problem with her general behaviour, in particular, as well as that of Muhammad Butt, in the wider sense is that they appear to hate any criticism of them. This is evident in behaviour online also in response to other critics.
Critics who are not simply slagging off of them but genuine constructive and at times helpful criticism. Such critics are ridiculed by Poulton and/or Butt and then subjected to potential “pile-ons” by the supporters of the pair. It is a distinct pattern of behaviour and one in which Poulton’s defence may ultimately fall down.
No proper journalist, or employer of such, would react publicly the way both of them have to this case, nor would they go around claiming that conducting a legal case against them is a form of harassment.
It’s not.
It is also likely that the courts will take a very dim view of such being described as “harassment”.
Perhaps this should be noted by all concerned: paragraph 44 in the ruling of Hayden v Dickenson
Legal communications tend to be blunt, to the point, partially to avoid misinterpretation.
By being so, they are not automatically oppressive or harassment especially if they are part and parcel of conducting a case. Nor are they necessarily SLAPP [“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”] communications although it can be amply demonstrated that at least one legal representative for Butt has engaged in such in the past.
Put simply: don’t keep rocking the boat with misrepresentations or at least present such as “opinion” rather than fact. Ironically, one of the very first requirements of a genuine journalist is to distinguish between fact and opinion.
Each time either side rocks the boat, the issues become more and more complex and certainly from the claimants’ side he’s clearly had enough of the sort of behaviour that Esther Baker’s supporters have caused him. No wonder tbh.
He’s had EIGHT years of this sort of ridiculousness and he is allowed to get on with his life without the likes of Poulton etc dragging up false allegations against him or attempting to further those allegations in any way.
Regardless of what people may think of him, Mr Hemming has a right, as Poulton has previously admitted elsewhere, it should be noted, to defend his reputation, protect his family from being “attacked” either physically or mentally and is simply exerting those rights.
The judge has also noted that, in a round about way in the ruling in paragraph 202 exhibited earlier in this article. Ms Poulton’s latest “Fighting Fund” update today may therefore be in contempt of the ruling already.
The fact that it is Poulton being sued seems to have made her feel differently however about the exercising of rights.
It should also be noted that she knew, and has previously publicly admitted that, Hemming was “litigious” before embarking on this whole matter. Indeed in the very interview with Attwood at the centre of this whole case she can be quoted as saying the following:
“what I do is that, umm, John Hemming is extremely pro-active at any suggestion to do with anything to do with reputation and I don’t have a problem with that either, coz I’m extremely pro-active about my reputation because my reputation is important to me.”
Sonia Poulton in interview with Shaun Attwood originally posted 22nd November 2019 on Attwood’s Facebook page
“I don’t have a problem with that“… whoops.
The transcript of that interview is included as an annex in the judgment document above.
The same interview also demonstrates some of the level of collusion that was happening between Poulton and Baker. Some, not all.
She also knew that Attwood had removed the offending interview quite quickly after he was made aware of the legal issues in it.
Whilst he was the publisher, she was the person who spoke the words in question.
It’s also not the first time Poulton has run her mouth off in various interviews either.
Also, for the record, no-one would be able to “apply pressure” on the Attorney General [AG] to refer a matter to the police or not. It is purely for the offices of the AG to decide whether to refer a matter for criminal investigation or not, there are alternatives which the AG can pursue if the matter does not relate to criminal matters also.
Ms Poulton is obviously going to be put to the test on that matter regarding her claims that pressure was put on the AG to refer her breach of reporting restrictions to the police in the Hampstead Hoax case based on what Mr Laverty has said in his submissions.
With regards to Poulton’s submissions to the court, she is likely to find some difficulty with some of the claims she made:
Poulton chose to represent herself in this hearing and since likely receiving advice that she didn’t like too.
The “complete bombardment” of litigation quote is obviously her playing victim to the court in our opinion and fails to recognize her responses to such publicly.
The issues are not ones of SLAPP type cases in general either as is clear by the granting of other applications and the continuations of the defamation etc claims against her. The specific additional claim she is contesting is a GDPR claim against her regarding content in her video “Paedophiles in Parliament” and which has been set aside (stayed) at present.
It is however likely, in our view, that the content of “Paedophiles in Parliament” which relate to Hemming are going to be raised within the harassment case against Poulton because as the judge noted:
“PIP is indeed the first relevant event between the parties” … “More specifically, PIP was the background to Publication 1 and was expressly discussed in it”
Mrs Justice Hill, paragraph 243 in ruling 24th November 2023
The “pattern” of “working together to pursue her” overlooks the fact that Poulton has been working with Butt and others “together” to pursue Hemming etc and obviously overlooks the “Fighting Fund” support etc that Poulton has gained. It is once again very hypocritical.
How can a pro-bono legal “team” do their jobs if they are not communicating with each other and indeed sharing information is a human right.
That does not mean that there is another agenda in place though.
The “intimidation and silencing” accusation is a very interesting one which doesn’t stand up to any close scrutiny and indeed the court will very likely in future be made aware of Ms Poulton’s conduct towards several individuals in making false allegations about them to the police resulting in at least one wrongful arrest and her wasting of police and court time.
Indeed, Mr Laverty makes reference to Ms Poulton’s conduct towards him involving the police in his counter application.
It is also very evident, in those same events, that Ms Poulton was colluding with Esther Baker and other supporters of Baker in order to “silence” critics of Baker and Poulton.
So the “intimidation and silencing” accusation is one which Ms Poulton would be wise to avoid in future in our view as it is extremely hypocritical at best and downright malicious at worst.
It remains to be seen if the other individuals are asked for and/or provide witness statements against Poulton for those events if this civil case progresses to trial.
She now appears, judging by the latest rather ridiculous (our opinion) update to her “Fighting Fund” to be attempting to rewrite history on that collusion with Baker. What happens as a result of that ridiculous update remains to be seen, it is however typical of the way in which Ms Poulton has behaved in general and is unlikely to see any concessions from her opponents. She would be very wise to re-read Annex 1 in the hearing ruling, we would suggest.
Mr Smith is not acting in a “McKenzie Friend” capacity either in his support of Mr Hemming, he is entitled to offer pro-bono legal assistance to whoever he wishes to, he is not bound by “guidance for the conduct of McKenzie Friends” and had Poulton read the ruling in Baker v Hemming she would’ve understood that. There is a very clear difference between the role of a “McKenzie Friend” and one of a pro-bono legal advisor and assistant.
Mr Butt isn’t entirely clean on issues either, he broadcast a video which threatened Mr Smith and Smith won an injunction against Butt for doing so, Butt’s witness statement is hardly, in our opinion, the truth of the matter but that is up to a court to decide. His witness statement will also be publicly available.
Settlements of legal cases often disadvantage one side or another. The defendant or claimant in any case is not entitled automatically to a settlement to their advantage nor should they assume so.
It is clear also from other material available that Poulton has acquired funding from third parties for pursuing her defence, notably from Mr Butt it seems, and as such there are clear rules regarding the participation of third party funders in proceedings, Mr Butt are you paying attention?
A little bit of education and not being case specific: It is illegal for third party funders to attempt to influence proceedings they are funding in any way.
This is, of course, especially true if a third party funder is expecting to receive a specific amount back from the “client” in the form of repayment in full of a “loan” up front and that funder influences the outcome or attempts to influence outcomes during the case in any way. This may include, of course, issuing witness statements to the court and even more so if such submissions contain statements which are clearly untrue but accompanied by a statement of truth. Contempt and/or Perverting the Course of Justice issues may also then come into play is such statements continue to the stage of a trial. Again even more so, if the third party funder is influencing the decision making of the “client” in order to settle or not settle based on the amounts of the original funding or also has a separate vested interest in the “client” as their “employer”. Readers can probably see where such would lead if allowed to continue in a wider, non-case specific sense.
There are obvious issues surrounding “joint enterprise” for example.
In Poulton’s case it raises questions as to the nature of the “disadvantage” she claims she would be in if she settled and whether that “disadvantage” includes repayment of any monies given to her up front.
In our view, the complete lack of self awareness by Poulton, in the judge’s summary of Poulton’s submissions, is clearly evident.
It’s always someone else’s fault in other words in Poulton’s eyes, in our opinion.
Defending or pursuing legal cases is fraught with issues, fraught with hiccups along the way, fraught with costs and fraught with the potential to cause health problems.
The best way to avoid those issues of fraught are to behave properly and do adequate research in the first place and for supposed independent journalists especially not to simply take sides based on their opinions or run their mouths off without such adequate research and especially if there are other issues to take into account such as previous collusion.
In our opinion, Poulton could’ve made, and still could make, all of this go away by being much more self aware, apologise and also by amending material that is clearly no longer reflective of the status of the original complaints by Baker.
The simple fact that she refuses to do so in any constructive form, as is very evident, is unlikely to assist any possible defence and the more she incites responses, via her fundraising page for example, the more difficult that defence will likely also become in our opinion.
Her fundraising page is NOT covered by the journalistic privileges either, it is designed as a fundraising page not a reporting page on hearings.
Her now denials that she was seeking to advance allegations against Hemming simply do not add up in our view (nor does the evidence in Annex 1 support her attempts to denial advancing allegations in our opinion) and as such are more likely to see Hemming etc dig their heels in and continue to a point where Poulton is risking not only possible bankruptcy but if she is in contempt of court then a possible prison sentence may also beckon.
She could’ve used proper fundraising pages and if she hadn’t misrepresented the case in question on any of those “proper” fundraising pages then there would be no grounds for such pages to be closed down. Unfortunately, this appears to be an issue that she has either overlooked or has deliberately sought to be awkward over. Such proper fundraising pages would also, of course, be more transparent as to where the funding is coming from for her “fighting fund”.
For example, Esther Baker’s “fundraising” pages were only removed because she misrepresented the case in question on the fundraising pages concerned.
So why didn’t Poulton want that proper transparency though?
Why all the drama?
Why not simply stay quiet and not rock the boat so much?
Sometimes less is more.
The fact that she is now asking for more money on her Fighting Fund page with, what appears to be, a further misrepresentation on her part may also expose her to more legal issues. Especially in light of this quote from Mrs Justice Hill:
“it was a matter of common sense that to assert someone had sexually abused a child was bound to cause serious harm. In my judgment, these submissions have considerable force.“
It should also be noted that since the October 2023 hearing took place, it has become public knowledge that My Media World [MMW] and OneVSP have been under investigation by media regulator OFCOM and there has been a reprimand [published recently] towards My Media World by the Information Commissioner’s Office with regards to the two previous hacks of data from MMW and the general lack of data security at MMW.
The nature of the OFCOM investigation is very interesting with regards to Poulton’s RISE programme contents i.e. RISE has no age restrictions, no warnings about graphic content (in the content itself) and the broadcast time of the programmes (around breakfast) when children could be watching/listening. RISE frequently discusses issues such as “child abuse” which would obviously fall into the restricted categories OFCOM have for possible discussion in front of children. All of the RISE uploads to OneVSP appear to be by… Sonia Poulton.
Whether any sanctions result from the OFCOM investigation remain to be seen and are entirely up to them.
For the sake of clarity, and to avoid further false allegations, the OFCOM investigation has NOTHING to do with anyone at Spin v Truth and in our opinion it is more likely that OFCOM are reacting to other issues identified by the ICO during their separate investigations.
And also for the sake of transparency, we did alert the ICO several years ago to our concerns about data protection at MMW, however we have not been asked to provide formal statements or additional information since our original information supply.
We have not communicated with either regulator since that time.
As always these are merely our opinions and observations based on the evidence before us.
Spin-vs-Truth 